The 2nd picture is what Islam most likely is, the first one is people I would ignore, because in my eyes, they completely missunderstood the Islam

So the answers to my questions are: 1) the favorable one and 2) you. No offense, but this is what I was expecting. The point remains is that they both represent islam. Specifically the parts of islam which are cherry-picked to support the viewpoint the follower in question likes more. In this regard, your religion is no different than the christianity on which you're commenting. Interestingly, you appear to concede as much a few lines down (which would seem to invalidate everything you've said above )

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dark Jedi Han

(I'm telling you, I would love to go back to the 12th century. There, WE were much more noble IMO).

But every religion has that. You've got the KKK, neo-nazis, strict believers, ... . The Jews who wanted Yeshos' death were equivalent to "them in the pic."

And per my point, these agents feel that they are the ones correctly interpretting the holy book in question. Which makes the whole "let's use these texts as the basis for our culture" thing a little difficult to understand.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dark Jedi Han

As for the dogs, long ago you also had little dogs and big ones, that's what I meant.

No, you had wolves, which is my point. Some wolves became domesticated and then bred for specific traits which lead to the array of dog breeds we see today. So with regards to dogs specifically, they have "purpose" because we bred them with "purpose" in mind. Inherently, there was no "purpose" to their existence. I would argue that this is the same for all animals, including the ape species we commonly refer to as "us".

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dark Jedi Han

Bible-Qur'an reference:
I already told about the bible, and now the Qur'an. One of the passages clearly say that Rabbi's words are true and complete and that the definition is clear. If He says: "Cover your body where needed", then a "light" religious woman will cover her upperbody and legs, a "medium" religious woman will also cover her head and a strict believer will cover her body such that you even can't see her ... 'silhouette'. They ALL will certainly cover their breasts and legs, because that's the most important thing to cover.

According to whom? I sense circular reasoning at play here

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dark Jedi Han

And yes, I got a "lil' bit" off topic with the miracles hehe. But it's true!

Per your opinion, which means that it's not "true" in any objective sense of the word. And that's my point

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dark Jedi Han

To roughly answer "the question of religion" is "the answer to "Why are we here?". "

So our "purpose" for being here is to have religion?

On what basis should I find this argument compelling? What if I determine that I want my life to have some other purpose (or no purpose at all)? What makes me wrong?